Jo Yeates's mum offers to do reconstruction

docmac wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

lifeisforliving wrote:

fedrules wrote:There are photos of this Tabak guy on the Mail webpage which, in the light of what happened before, seems premature. According to the Mail the partial DNA sample found is enough to rule out suspects, but not to prove guilt. Tabak, as far as you can tell from photos, looks an ordinary sort of man and, having studied his eyes, I can't detect anything sinister or cold about them. Time will tell..

Now I have heard everything. Should we just line all people up against a wall and get and 'expert' to look into their eyes? Or better still, to save money, just let the 'expert' sit in front of a computer screen with mugshots flashing up of everybody. Then simple, just lock up the sinister ones. How come nobody has thought of such a thing before? It would solve all the problems of society at very little expense. Save the cost of courts and police and juries and lawyers etc.

Actually, there are experts who do just that, or at least something similar. They watch videos of suspects to pick out 'micro-expressions.'

This is true. I feel a new topic brewing...

I look forward to seeing the examples of the work done by these people. It must be saving the legal system a fortune to be able to spot the criminals in advance.

I presume it is a recent thing or we wouldn't still be having so much crime on the streets. And how did they miss Shipman?

sans_souci wrote:Fedrules - give the man a break, please.

"As for the boyfriend, he has to be the prime suspect, if merely from a statistical point of view. However, some of his words were rather odd IMO. For example, he said he thought he and Jo would be together forever and that they were planning to go to Jo's parents' home for Christmas - 'Always a big deal for a boyfriend'. The use of the past tense and the regret for things which weren't to be were somewhat strange, considering at the time Jo was only missing. Perhaps Jo had changed her mind about him and this lead to her death. Sadly it wouldn't be the first time that a woman has been killed for rejecting someone.."

"Jefferies's car is grey / silver..my money is definitely on him being the culprit. I just think it strange that forensics are still at his flat and that the police say they have no reason to believe women in Bristol are at a greater risk than normal."

and now

"There are photos of this Tabak guy on the Mail webpage which, in the light of what happened before, seems premature. According to the Mail the partial DNA sample found is enough to rule out suspects, but not to prove guilt. Tabak, as far as you can tell from photos, looks an ordinary sort of man and, having studied his eyes, I can't detect anything sinister or cold about them. Time will tell.. "

_________________

On the basis of the accuracy of your previous sleuthing, they might as well lock this Tabak guy up and throw away the key......

Well spotted Sans. These skills are clearly working. All three murderers will be locked up immediately I hope. I wonder what the joint motive was.

Personally I am beginning to think that there are good grounds for preventing the media from publishing any details of people who have simply been arrested. Why do we even need to know the age and sex of people who have been arrested like the police always give us. It might be a much better system a persons information could only be published when they are charged with a crime. That way the rampant speculation which can destroy a persons character so easily might at least be reduced.

lifeisforliving wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

lifeisforliving wrote:

fedrules wrote:There are photos of this Tabak guy on the Mail webpage which, in the light of what happened before, seems premature. According to the Mail the partial DNA sample found is enough to rule out suspects, but not to prove guilt. Tabak, as far as you can tell from photos, looks an ordinary sort of man and, having studied his eyes, I can't detect anything sinister or cold about them. Time will tell..

Now I have heard everything. Should we just line all people up against a wall and get and 'expert' to look into their eyes? Or better still, to save money, just let the 'expert' sit in front of a computer screen with mugshots flashing up of everybody. Then simple, just lock up the sinister ones. How come nobody has thought of such a thing before? It would solve all the problems of society at very little expense. Save the cost of courts and police and juries and lawyers etc.

Actually, there are experts who do just that, or at least something similar. They watch videos of suspects to pick out 'micro-expressions.'

Oh dear. Are there? Are they like the experts who do studies that tell us remarkable things like sleep is good for us or tall people are noticed more quickly in a group.

More to the point what are they for? Who pays them? Have you any examples of where they have ever solved a crime or prevented a crime?

And do you think the average Joe Plod on a forum is able to really suss out people from the odd video clip on the internet or television?

Perhaps our coppers are getting it all wrong? Maybe they should be in armchairs with mugs of coffee in the station just watching CCTV all day. They could make lists of all the dodgy people they see and then send vans round later to pick them all up and send them off to jail. As I say no need for the legal system now we have these 'micro-expressions' sussed.

I look forward to the examples of the criminal work of these experts you do this work.

Not even worth paying an expert to do that. There are plenty of highly qualified forum experts who will analyse some press reports, look at a few video clips, and come to their learned and considered judgement of guilt or innocence. And they happily do it for free.

eta - I have just noticed - some bugger has been nicking me hard earned points. down to 198 now!

sans_souci wrote:

lifeisforliving wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

lifeisforliving wrote:

fedrules wrote:There are photos of this Tabak guy on the Mail webpage which, in the light of what happened before, seems premature. According to the Mail the partial DNA sample found is enough to rule out suspects, but not to prove guilt. Tabak, as far as you can tell from photos, looks an ordinary sort of man and, having studied his eyes, I can't detect anything sinister or cold about them. Time will tell..

Now I have heard everything. Should we just line all people up against a wall and get and 'expert' to look into their eyes? Or better still, to save money, just let the 'expert' sit in front of a computer screen with mugshots flashing up of everybody. Then simple, just lock up the sinister ones. How come nobody has thought of such a thing before? It would solve all the problems of society at very little expense. Save the cost of courts and police and juries and lawyers etc.

Actually, there are experts who do just that, or at least something similar. They watch videos of suspects to pick out 'micro-expressions.'

Oh dear. Are there? Are they like the experts who do studies that tell us remarkable things like sleep is good for us or tall people are noticed more quickly in a group.

More to the point what are they for? Who pays them? Have you any examples of where they have ever solved a crime or prevented a crime?

And do you think the average Joe Plod on a forum is able to really suss out people from the odd video clip on the internet or television?

Perhaps our coppers are getting it all wrong? Maybe they should be in armchairs with mugs of coffee in the station just watching CCTV all day. They could make lists of all the dodgy people they see and then send vans round later to pick them all up and send them off to jail. As I say no need for the legal system now we have these 'micro-expressions' sussed.

I look forward to the examples of the criminal work of these experts you do this work.

Not even worth paying an expert to do that. There are plenty of highly qualified forum experts who will analyse some press reports, look at a few video clips, and come to their learned and considered judgement of guilt or innocence. And they happily do it for free.

eta - I have just noticed - some bugger has been nicking me hard earned points. down to 198 now!

Oh dear and I thought you were going to retire when you got to -250.

Yep, I have to admit that my skills have not been too impressive in this thread,,

However, you have misread my post Sans as I actually said that I thought the Mail should NOT have published Mr Tabak's photos and that I did NOT see anything cold in his eyes. Personally, I do believe that some psychopaths have cold, unfeeling facial expressions and from what I've seen Mr Tabak does not fit into this category. As for my lack of sleuthing skills, as you put it, I based my ideas on statistics ( BF) and reports in the papers about Mr J, which were enough to make anyone feel he might be involved.

fedrules wrote:Yep, I have to admit that my skills have not been too impressive in this thread,,

However, you have misread my post Sans as I actually said that I thought the Mail should NOT have published Mr Tabak's photos and that I did NOT see anything cold in his eyes. Personally, I do believe that some psychopaths have cold, unfeeling facial expressions and from what I've seen Mr Tabak does not fit into this category. As for my lack of sleuthing skills, as you put it, I based my ideas on statistics ( BF) and reports in the papers about Mr J, which were enough to make anyone feel he might be involved.

Amateur or expert judgement based on a few bits of video on the telly are no substitute for police work and a proper trial.

That is why I am definitely coming to the opinion that we should know nothing of people till they are charged (except in certain very limited cases where there might still be a public risk).

lifeisforliving wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

lifeisforliving wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

lifeisforliving wrote:

Now I have heard everything. Should we just line all people up against a wall and get and 'expert' to look into their eyes? Or better still, to save money, just let the 'expert' sit in front of a computer screen with mugshots flashing up of everybody. Then simple, just lock up the sinister ones. How come nobody has thought of such a thing before? It would solve all the problems of society at very little expense. Save the cost of courts and police and juries and lawyers etc.

Actually, there are experts who do just that, or at least something similar. They watch videos of suspects to pick out 'micro-expressions.'

Oh dear. Are there? Are they like the experts who do studies that tell us remarkable things like sleep is good for us or tall people are noticed more quickly in a group.

More to the point what are they for? Who pays them? Have you any examples of where they have ever solved a crime or prevented a crime?

And do you think the average Joe Plod on a forum is able to really suss out people from the odd video clip on the internet or television?

Perhaps our coppers are getting it all wrong? Maybe they should be in armchairs with mugs of coffee in the station just watching CCTV all day. They could make lists of all the dodgy people they see and then send vans round later to pick them all up and send them off to jail. As I say no need for the legal system now we have these 'micro-expressions' sussed.

I look forward to the examples of the criminal work of these experts you do this work.

Not even worth paying an expert to do that. There are plenty of highly qualified forum experts who will analyse some press reports, look at a few video clips, and come to their learned and considered judgement of guilt or innocence. And they happily do it for free.

eta - I have just noticed - some bugger has been nicking me hard earned points. down to 198 now!

Oh dear and I thought you were going to retire when you got to -250.

At this rate, it could take YEARS!

sans_souci wrote:

lifeisforliving wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

lifeisforliving wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Actually, there are experts who do just that, or at least something similar. They watch videos of suspects to pick out 'micro-expressions.'

Oh dear. Are there? Are they like the experts who do studies that tell us remarkable things like sleep is good for us or tall people are noticed more quickly in a group.

More to the point what are they for? Who pays them? Have you any examples of where they have ever solved a crime or prevented a crime?

And do you think the average Joe Plod on a forum is able to really suss out people from the odd video clip on the internet or television?

Perhaps our coppers are getting it all wrong? Maybe they should be in armchairs with mugs of coffee in the station just watching CCTV all day. They could make lists of all the dodgy people they see and then send vans round later to pick them all up and send them off to jail. As I say no need for the legal system now we have these 'micro-expressions' sussed.

I look forward to the examples of the criminal work of these experts you do this work.

Not even worth paying an expert to do that. There are plenty of highly qualified forum experts who will analyse some press reports, look at a few video clips, and come to their learned and considered judgement of guilt or innocence. And they happily do it for free.

eta - I have just noticed - some bugger has been nicking me hard earned points. down to 198 now!

Oh dear and I thought you were going to retire when you got to -250.

At this rate, it could take YEARS!

Well the government did put up the retiring age this year didn't they. "We're all in it together now didn't you know!"

Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Warrant of further detention obtained.
UPDATED: 21/01/2011 16:09
Update to the Joanna Yeates murder investigation.
This afternoon, police have been to court and successfully applied for a warrant of further detention, which will enable us to continue to question the 32-year-old man we arrested yesterday (Thursday January 20) until late tomorrow evening (Saturday January 22).
There will then be four options open to us; we will either charge the individual, apply for another warrant of further detention, release the individual on bail pending further enquiries, or release him without charge.
As soon as we are in a position to release any further information, we will update the website and voicebank immediately.
You will understand that we are therefore unable to comment any further on this investigation at this time.


Any ideas on what action they will take this evening. I go for option 3 release on bail pending further enquiries. JMO

I see the newspapers are all at sea again.

lifeisforliving wrote:Personally I am beginning to think that there are good grounds for preventing the media from publishing any details of people who have simply been arrested. Why do we even need to know the age and sex of people who have been arrested like the police always give us. It might be a much better system a persons information could only be published when they are charged with a crime. That way the rampant speculation which can destroy a persons character so easily might at least be reduced.

I agree, though in the present case I suppose the fact that the police were going to be concentrating their searches on this man's flat might have meant there would have been heavy speculation on the possibility of his involvement anyway. Even if the media couldn't give the name of the flat's tenant they could still say which flat was now the focus of attention, this would probably have resulted in the suspect's name being all over the Internet (not easy to police the Internet).

The term 'arrested' is part of the problem, IMO, it makes it sound maybe more doom-laden than is really the case, with the suggestion the person is being forcibly held rather than cooperating and 'helping the police with their enquiries'. Of course an arrested person isn't free to go in the way a 'helper' is, but if the arrestee cooperates with the police then the difference between them and someone 'helping with enquiries' seems pretty small to me. As it is, 'an arrest has been made' seems to many people to suggest charges are imminent which of course is not necessarily the case.

Dimsie wrote:

lifeisforliving wrote:Personally I am beginning to think that there are good grounds for preventing the media from publishing any details of people who have simply been arrested. Why do we even need to know the age and sex of people who have been arrested like the police always give us. It might be a much better system a persons information could only be published when they are charged with a crime. That way the rampant speculation which can destroy a persons character so easily might at least be reduced.

I agree, though in the present case I suppose the fact that the police were going to be concentrating their searches on this man's flat might have meant there would have been heavy speculation on the possibility of his involvement anyway. Even if the media couldn't give the name of the flat's tenant they could still say which flat was now the focus of attention, this would probably have resulted in the suspect's name being all over the Internet (not easy to police the Internet).

The term 'arrested' is part of the problem, IMO, it makes it sound maybe more doom-laden than is really the case, with the suggestion the person is being forcibly held rather than cooperating and 'helping the police with their enquiries'. Of course an arrested person isn't free to go in the way a 'helper' is, but if the arrestee cooperates with the police then the difference between them and someone 'helping with enquiries' seems pretty small to me. As it is, 'an arrest has been made' seems to many people to suggest charges are imminent which of course is not necessarily the case.

I agree with you both. IMO a person is "helping police with enquires" should be all that is reported until the person is either charged or not required to assist any more.

Krisy22 wrote:

Dimsie wrote:

lifeisforliving wrote:Personally I am beginning to think that there are good grounds for preventing the media from publishing any details of people who have simply been arrested. Why do we even need to know the age and sex of people who have been arrested like the police always give us. It might be a much better system a persons information could only be published when they are charged with a crime. That way the rampant speculation which can destroy a persons character so easily might at least be reduced.

I agree, though in the present case I suppose the fact that the police were going to be concentrating their searches on this man's flat might have meant there would have been heavy speculation on the possibility of his involvement anyway. Even if the media couldn't give the name of the flat's tenant they could still say which flat was now the focus of attention, this would probably have resulted in the suspect's name being all over the Internet (not easy to police the Internet).

The term 'arrested' is part of the problem, IMO, it makes it sound maybe more doom-laden than is really the case, with the suggestion the person is being forcibly held rather than cooperating and 'helping the police with their enquiries'. Of course an arrested person isn't free to go in the way a 'helper' is, but if the arrestee cooperates with the police then the difference between them and someone 'helping with enquiries' seems pretty small to me. As it is, 'an arrest has been made' seems to many people to suggest charges are imminent which of course is not necessarily the case.

I agree with you both. IMO a person is "helping police with enquires" should be all that is reported until the person is either charged or not required to assist any more.

Agree completely with the bit about the word 'arrest'. But the police could I suspect have simply made it clear that they were looking at all the flats in that block. The fact that Jefferies and Tabak are both living elsewhere makes it look to me as though the block is out of bounds anyway. They could easily erect high fencing round the whole site and state that the whole building is of interest.

lifeisforliving wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

lifeisforliving wrote:

fedrules wrote:There are photos of this Tabak guy on the Mail webpage which, in the light of what happened before, seems premature. According to the Mail the partial DNA sample found is enough to rule out suspects, but not to prove guilt. Tabak, as far as you can tell from photos, looks an ordinary sort of man and, having studied his eyes, I can't detect anything sinister or cold about them. Time will tell..

Now I have heard everything. Should we just line all people up against a wall and get and 'expert' to look into their eyes? Or better still, to save money, just let the 'expert' sit in front of a computer screen with mugshots flashing up of everybody. Then simple, just lock up the sinister ones. How come nobody has thought of such a thing before? It would solve all the problems of society at very little expense. Save the cost of courts and police and juries and lawyers etc.

Actually, there are experts who do just that, or at least something similar. They watch videos of suspects to pick out 'micro-expressions.'

Oh dear. Are there? Are they like the experts who do studies that tell us remarkable things like sleep is good for us or tall people are noticed more quickly in a group.

More to the point what are they for? Who pays them? Have you any examples of where they have ever solved a crime or prevented a crime?

And do you think the average Joe Plod on a forum is able to really suss out people from the odd video clip on the internet or television?

Perhaps our coppers are getting it all wrong? Maybe they should be in armchairs with mugs of coffee in the station just watching CCTV all day. They could make lists of all the dodgy people they see and then send vans round later to pick them all up and send them off to jail. As I say no need for the legal system now we have these 'micro-expressions' sussed.

I look forward to the examples of the criminal work of these experts you do this work.

Training in the observation of microexpressions is quite involved, I believe, and the technique is being used as an extra tool, in addition to technology, in international airports in the US and Israel. It has very little value on its own, of course, but as an extra tool can indicate where a person may be lying.

AnnaEsse wrote:

lifeisforliving wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

lifeisforliving wrote:

fedrules wrote:There are photos of this Tabak guy on the Mail webpage which, in the light of what happened before, seems premature. According to the Mail the partial DNA sample found is enough to rule out suspects, but not to prove guilt. Tabak, as far as you can tell from photos, looks an ordinary sort of man and, having studied his eyes, I can't detect anything sinister or cold about them. Time will tell..

Now I have heard everything. Should we just line all people up against a wall and get and 'expert' to look into their eyes? Or better still, to save money, just let the 'expert' sit in front of a computer screen with mugshots flashing up of everybody. Then simple, just lock up the sinister ones. How come nobody has thought of such a thing before? It would solve all the problems of society at very little expense. Save the cost of courts and police and juries and lawyers etc.

Actually, there are experts who do just that, or at least something similar. They watch videos of suspects to pick out 'micro-expressions.'

Oh dear. Are there? Are they like the experts who do studies that tell us remarkable things like sleep is good for us or tall people are noticed more quickly in a group.

More to the point what are they for? Who pays them? Have you any examples of where they have ever solved a crime or prevented a crime?

And do you think the average Joe Plod on a forum is able to really suss out people from the odd video clip on the internet or television?

Perhaps our coppers are getting it all wrong? Maybe they should be in armchairs with mugs of coffee in the station just watching CCTV all day. They could make lists of all the dodgy people they see and then send vans round later to pick them all up and send them off to jail. As I say no need for the legal system now we have these 'micro-expressions' sussed.

I look forward to the examples of the criminal work of these experts you do this work.

Training in the observation of microexpressions is quite involved, I believe, and the technique is being used as an extra tool, in addition to technology, in international airports in the US and Israel. It has very little value on its own, of course, but as an extra tool can indicate where a person may be lying.

I agree totally. It is like the 'coppers nose' which I suspect was simply experience of watching lots of people lying over the years and building up a knowledge of the patterns. But it should NEVER be relied on to determine guilt. There is always going to be a place for a proper legal system. I think the claims for the techniques are very greatly exaggerated mainly by programmes such as Cracker and that one with Robson Green in it.

lifeisforliving wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

lifeisforliving wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

lifeisforliving wrote:

Now I have heard everything. Should we just line all people up against a wall and get and 'expert' to look into their eyes? Or better still, to save money, just let the 'expert' sit in front of a computer screen with mugshots flashing up of everybody. Then simple, just lock up the sinister ones. How come nobody has thought of such a thing before? It would solve all the problems of society at very little expense. Save the cost of courts and police and juries and lawyers etc.

Actually, there are experts who do just that, or at least something similar. They watch videos of suspects to pick out 'micro-expressions.'

Oh dear. Are there? Are they like the experts who do studies that tell us remarkable things like sleep is good for us or tall people are noticed more quickly in a group.

More to the point what are they for? Who pays them? Have you any examples of where they have ever solved a crime or prevented a crime?

And do you think the average Joe Plod on a forum is able to really suss out people from the odd video clip on the internet or television?

Perhaps our coppers are getting it all wrong? Maybe they should be in armchairs with mugs of coffee in the station just watching CCTV all day. They could make lists of all the dodgy people they see and then send vans round later to pick them all up and send them off to jail. As I say no need for the legal system now we have these 'micro-expressions' sussed.

I look forward to the examples of the criminal work of these experts you do this work.

Training in the observation of microexpressions is quite involved, I believe, and the technique is being used as an extra tool, in addition to technology, in international airports in the US and Israel. It has very little value on its own, of course, but as an extra tool can indicate where a person may be lying.

I agree totally. It is like the 'coppers nose' which I suspect was simply experience of watching lots of people lying over the years and building up a knowledge of the patterns. But it should NEVER be relied on to determine guilt. There is always going to be a place for a proper legal system. I think the claims for the techniques are very greatly exaggerated mainly by programmes such as Cracker and that one with Robson Green in it.

It is, as I have said, just another tool and of course cannot determine guilt. Only a court of law, in any case, can determine or decide on guilt in civilised countries. What the technique can do is give pointers to where there may be a strong emotional response which could be considered inappropriate in the circumstances, but since judging appropriate or inappropriate is subjective, I am glad to hear the 'experts,' using conditional words like 'may,' and 'could.'

BREAKING NEWSVincent Tabak Charged With Jo Yeates Murder
Neighbour charged with Jo murder
1 hour 24 mins ago

Buzz Up!


Email StoryPrint Story
A 32-year-old man has been charged with the murder of landscape architect Joanna Yeates, police said. Skip related content

RELATED PHOTOS / VIDEOS
Neighbour charged with Jo murder
Enlarge photo
More photos: Crime
RELATED CONTENT
Dutchman charged in Yeates murder hunt
Man charged with Joanna Yeates murder
Joanna suspect quiz continuing
Related Hot Topic: Joanna Yeates
Have your say: Joanna Yeates
Vincent Tabak will face Bristol Magistrates' Court on Monday accused of killing the 25-year-old.

Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones, who led the inquiry, said: "This evening we have charged Vincent Tabak with the murder of Joanna Yeates.

"I would like to pay tribute to Jo's family and Greg for their assistance and dignity in the most difficult of circumstances. Their support to us has been invaluable.

"I would also like to thank the general public for their help and the information they continue to provide to the investigation, and the residents of Canynge Road for their co-operation and patience."

Dutch engineer Tabak, who lived next door to Miss Yeates at 44 Canynge Road, Clifton, Bristol, was arrested on Thursday.

Specialist search teams have been examining Tabak's flat, which he shares with his girlfriend, Tanja Morson, an analyst for Dyson, in Malmesbury, Wiltshire.

Miss Yeates shared her rented home with her boyfriend, Greg Reardon, 27.

Tabak, a trilingual engineer, is an expert in the flow of people through buildings, including sports venues.

Tabak's arrest was the second to be made by detectives since Miss Yeates's frozen body was found dumped in a lane on the outskirts of Bristol on Christmas Day. Her landlord, Chris Jefferies, 66, was arrested on December 30 and questioned for three days on suspicion of murder before being released on bail.

just shows what can be achieved when family fully cooperate with the police....something what 99% of family's automatically will do ...everything and more

unless you have an ulterior motive ....and dont want the case solving ...imo



quote

Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones, who is leading the investigation, said: "I would like to pay tribute to Jo's family and (boyfriend) Greg for their assistance and dignity in the most difficult of circumstances.

"Their support to us has been invaluable."

I'm relieved to see the police appear to have cracked the case, but still feel terribly sorry for Jo's family, boyfriend and friends who will never get Jo back..I imagine it must be so hard for Greg Reardon knowing that if he hadn't chosen to visit family that weekend, Jo would still be alive. Fate or just mere chance, who knows?

I cannot understand how anyone can murder a young woman and not be so racked with guilt and remorse that they don't immediately confess. I guess self-preservation is a very strong instinct..

Why did this man take poor Jo's life, if he is guilty of course...

So sad, but at least the perpetrator is probably off the streets..

xtina wrote:just shows what can be achieved when family fully cooperate with the police....something what 99% of family's automatically will do ...everything and more

unless you have an ulterior motive ....and dont want the case solving ...imo



quote

Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones, who is leading the investigation, said: "I would like to pay tribute to Jo's family and (boyfriend) Greg for their assistance and dignity in the most difficult of circumstances.

"Their support to us has been invaluable."

Mind you, had the Phil Jones been of the 'statistically one of the family must have done it - just a case of which one' school, then things might be a bit different.

I do seem to recall the reflex of some members here was that it was the boyfriend.

Anyway, - not Tabak,

'as far as you can tell from photos, looks an ordinary sort of man and, having studied his eyes, I can't detect anything sinister or cold about them. Time will tell..'

I see Sans you are out to try and provoke me with your out-of-context quotes. I said 'as far as you can tell from a photo' which is not at all the same thing as saying 'you can tell from his photo'. Anyway, I agree with those who feel that details of people asked to help the police with their inquiries ought not to be released and published in the press. Here in Switzerland, even the identity of those found guilty of a crime is not published in the press. However, the internet is making it increasingly easy for such details to get out regardless of the law.

sans_souci wrote:

xtina wrote:just shows what can be achieved when family fully cooperate with the police....something what 99% of family's automatically will do ...everything and more

unless you have an ulterior motive ....and dont want the case solving ...imo



quote

Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones, who is leading the investigation, said: "I would like to pay tribute to Jo's family and (boyfriend) Greg for their assistance and dignity in the most difficult of circumstances.

"Their support to us has been invaluable."

Mind you, had the Phil Jones been of the 'statistically one of the family must have done it - just a case of which one' school, then things might be a bit different.

I do seem to recall the reflex of some members here was that it was the boyfriend.

Anyway, - not Tabak,

'as far as you can tell from photos, looks an ordinary sort of man and, having studied his eyes, I can't detect anything sinister or cold about them. Time will tell..'

Time will tell if you are able to detect anything sinister or cold about his eyes? Well do let us know!

Sans is quoting me there AnneEsse.

I felt that Tabak did not have the cold, soulless eyes we associate with psychopaths. I was judging by the photos in the Mail which showed him smiling with his ex-girlfriend at a rock festival.

AnnaEsse wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

xtina wrote:just shows what can be achieved when family fully cooperate with the police....something what 99% of family's automatically will do ...everything and more

unless you have an ulterior motive ....and dont want the case solving ...imo



quote

Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones, who is leading the investigation, said: "I would like to pay tribute to Jo's family and (boyfriend) Greg for their assistance and dignity in the most difficult of circumstances.

"Their support to us has been invaluable."

Mind you, had the Phil Jones been of the 'statistically one of the family must have done it - just a case of which one' school, then things might be a bit different.

I do seem to recall the reflex of some members here was that it was the boyfriend.

Anyway, - not Tabak,

'as far as you can tell from photos, looks an ordinary sort of man and, having studied his eyes, I can't detect anything sinister or cold about them. Time will tell..'

Time will tell if you are able to detect anything sinister or cold about his eyes? Well do let us know!

Sorry Anna - that was a quote from one of the forum experts.

fedrules wrote:I see Sans you are out to try and provoke me with your out-of-context quotes. I said 'as far as you can tell from a photo' which is not at all the same thing as saying 'you can tell from his photo'. Anyway, I agree with those who feel that details of people asked to help the police with their inquiries ought not to be released and published in the press. Here in Switzerland, even the identity of those found guilty of a crime is not published in the press. However, the internet is making it increasingly easy for such details to get out regardless of the law.

I do apologise, Fedrules. I am afraid I could not resist.

One a serious note, I am in two minds about disclosure of the identity of those arrested in connection with a crime. To publish the name risks idle and uniformed speculation. But to keep the name secret risks something potentially much worse, in my view.